Ship of Fools: Hell: The Proper Apology

Thread: Hell: The Proper Apology Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000201

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Many people on this board have said that an apology is worthless if it does not include an admission of wrong doing? Is this true? Can't we be sorry for something we've done without thinking that we were wrong? If I have a controversial opinion that offends others, can't I apologize for causing offence without refuting my position on the issue?

Commandment Five says:

quote:
If you get it wrong, please apologise. Sincere apologies have always been warmly received on these boards.

This does imply that if we are apologizing then we must have "gotten it wrong," but it's a concept I really hadn't encountered until I came to this board.

I've broken my own rule never to start threads because I really want to get to the bottom of this.

[ 25. April 2003, 15:06: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

I think "sincere apology" is the key here.

If you are stubbornly obtuse for ten pages of a thread, and then stick out a wilted olive branch saying essentially that you give up and apologise even though one is not needed since you've done no wrong, I think you've missed the boat on "Sincere". Especially if argument and facts presented make it fairly clear that you are in the wrong.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Such a person Bessie could not give a sincere apology on the grounds of the matter being "wrong" if he/she did not believe it to be so, even after 10 pages, but that person could apologise for the offence caused whether or not he/she believed the offence was justifiably based on the evidence of the issue itself. That would remain the case for the next 10 pages unless there was something yet to be grasped that he or she could not yet see.

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

Twilight, I think this is an excellent question and a much misunderstood point.

I have come to the view that apologies that start "I'm sorry if" are worthless because they involve no admission of wrongdoing. How can you be sincere if you don't think you've done any wrong?

I think you can be sincere saying something along the lines of: "I can see how my post could have been understood in such and such a way, I apologise as this was not my intention" (if indeed this is true!). But this will not do if you are demonstrably in the wrong.

We are bound to disagree often about the issues, that is the nature of this community, but I think we can do so without setting out to offend individuals.

(but should this be in Hell...?)

Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Many people on this board have said that an apology is worthless if it does not include an admission of wrong doing? Is this true? Can't we be sorry for something we've done without thinking that we were wrong? If I have a controversial opinion that offends others, can't I apologize for causing offence without refuting my position on the issue?

I agree it's true that an apology is worthless if it doesn't include an admission of wrong doing. However, that admission doesn't have to be that your opinion was wrong, just that the causing offence with it was wrong.

Someone who had, on one of these boards, caused a great offence such as you describe, could say, for example: "I am very sorry that I wrote such hurtful comments in my previous post. I did not think carefully about how another person might react to them and did not realise that such offence would be caused. I am also sorry that I posted inaccurate information - in my enthusiasm to defend my position I did not check my facts fully before posting. On both counts I was wrong, and I apologise unreservedly. In future when I am defending my views on XXXXXXXX I will take better care to debate in a constructive and accurate manner"

This contains the admission of wrong doing without withdrawing the original opinion. In a free society everyone is entitled to their opinions, even offensive ones. The only rule is the keep the debate itself free from offensiveness.

So, yes it's true, and yes you can.

[Code edited]

[ 19. February 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I don't think anyone needs to apologize for holding opinions that others think are wrong. It may be necessary to apologise for the manner in which those opinions are expressed or an attitude to people holding alternative opinions.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

.... and of course there is the old issue about who has offended whom and who is first in the queue for consideration.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

What of accidents then? I just sat on the cat. I don't think I was in the wrong. It's dark in here in the morning and he has never been in my computer chair before so there was no precedent. He, on the other hand, is young and extremely fast and agile and should have "seen it coming" in time to get out of the way. Still I was very, sincerely sorry to have sat on his furry self. I apologized profusely.

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Such a person Bessie could not give a sincere apology on the grounds of the matter being "wrong" if he/she did not believe it to be so, even after 10 pages, but that person could apologise for the offence caused whether or not he/she believed the offence was justifiably based on the evidence of the issue itself. That would remain the case for the next 10 pages unless there was something yet to be grasped that he or she could not yet see.

I, for the life of me, cannot see why you have to quantify this matter down to "the offense was justifiably based on the evidence of the issue itself"? What exactly does that mean? To me, it smells like that good ole "wiggle room" we all want to leave ourselves in justifying our sins and wrong doings.

I indeed think this belongs in Hell. [Mad]

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What of accidents then? I just sat on the cat.

You caused hurt, albeit inadvertently. You recognised this and apologised: "I'm sorry I hurt you".

You could go on to discuss with your cat how to avoid the situation happening again, but this does not detract from your original apology.

(Then again, you could shut your office door before going to bed... but I hope the Balaam's Ass dimension this is taking does not derail an interesting discussion)

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Bessie

When the allegation of "sin" and "wrong doing" is in dispute the issue is not usually decided by the prosecution.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Eutychus

Indeed what you say is correct but this is not the issue here. The OP refers to the sincerity of an apology that admits the unintentional offence but does not concede the sinfulness of that which caused the offence.

Posted by Clíona (# 2035) on :

I don't think this issue is only on board the ship - I have encountered this in my daily life.

In training courses in customer service I give, one of the things I always try to make my trainees understand is that you can apologise for having caused offence, for the feeling of disappointed expectations. This does not mean that you are taking full responsibility - just that you realise the person has a right to their feelings, that they are allowed to feel as they do. When someone is upset, you are sincerely sorry for this upset.

In negotiation, the technique that needs to be used is rather than saying: Yes...but... (As in, Yes, you may think that, but my opinion is the right one!) you need to say: 'Yes...and' (Which would mean: 'Yes, I understand what you mean, and I have a different point of view in this discussion.) The whole thing at least leads to a discussion, rather than an argument of 'I'm right!' 'No! I'm right!'

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Cliona

100% [Not worthy!]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

BusyBee quote:

quote:
Someone who had, on one of these boards, caused a great offence such as you describe, could say, for example: "I am very sorry that I wrote such hurtful comments in my previous post. I did not think carefully about how another person might react to them and did not realise that such offence would be caused. I am also sorry that I posted inaccurate information - in my enthusiasm to defend my position I did not check my facts fully before posting. On both counts I was wrong, and I apologise unreservedly. In future when I am defending my views on XXXXXXXX I will take better care to debate in a constructive and accurate manner"

Thank you BusyBee, now were getting to the meat of it. Your example, while quite nice if offered freely from a certain type of person, would seem like unnatural groveling to me if it came from another type. My question is: Do any of us have the right to require this from others? Aren't we putting ourselves on a very superior pedestal if we are only satisfied when another poster humbles himself to this point?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Oops amke that BuzzyBee, terribly sorry, I was wrong. [Embarrassed]

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

I must add that the "confession" includes admission of material error (inaccurate information) which could be something contested in the context of this OP ... that is a sincere apology for the offence (effects) but not on substance of the contested issue vis-a-vis the evidence and its interpretation (cause).

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Bessie

When the allegation of "sin" and "wrong doing" is in dispute the issue is not usually decided by the prosecution.

Not enough development of thought here, Fr Gregory. How are you saying the issue is decided?

This is exactly what I mean by "being obtuse", Fr Gregory. You throw out a one liner like this with no debatable content like a bone with no meat on it, as if I'm a dog and will run beneath the bed and chew on your delicious thought instead of continuing my discussion with you.

Not so, Fr Gregory.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

And here I was thinking I was quite plain!

When issues are disputed or an allegation has been made which is contested, the only way to resolve an impasse is to resort to a higher authority.

So, whether it's a School's Governing Body, a Court, or a Sports Referee Council the option to have the issue decided on by impartial third parties (not the prosecution) is standard practice in human societies.

The implementation of that principle here would be the intervention of a Host.

Maybe it's because I use shorthand words and phrases?

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

Twilight, I think that on the Ship it is hosts and admins who can require apologies from posters if they deem them to have transgressed the 10C. In general, we can't require apologies but our relationships with other members will be influenced by the degree to which they accept responsibility for offence caused.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The OP refers to the sincerity of an apology that admits the unintentional offence but does not concede the sinfulness of that which caused the offence.

Fr Gregory, do I understand you to apply this to yourself as follows?

"I will apologise to people who say they have been offended by me, but this offence is entirely their responsibility and can never be attributed either to the views I hold or the manner in which I express them".

If so, I think we have more to discuss.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Eutychus

We are truing here to deal with the general principles of the OP and not to personalise that. There is plenty of reading matter on "Damned Dimunitives" to last a lifetime, so can I answer your question in terms of general principle? (I do of course agree to the principle I am describing).

quote:
"I will apologise to people who say they have been offended by me, but this offence is entirely their responsibility and can never be attributed either to the views I hold or the manner in which I express them".

I cannot see how this is a just and fair (to the offended that is) way of seeing things at all.

VIEWS
Never? Well of course, not "never." If someone were to make a sexist comment, the comment, once established as sexist would certainly have caused the offence and that could not and should not be denied. If however the comment was held not to be sexist by the offender, someone else would have to judge on that. Maybe a court would uphold what any reasonable person might think ... but that would involve something more than assessing the reactions of one or two people or even a group of people.

MANNER
If the manner is offensive then that is usually a clearer issue. An offensive manner is usually manifested by intemperate, aggressive or abusive speech. There is no defence against that.

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
And here I was thinking I was quite plain!

When issues are disputed or an allegation has been made which is contested, the only way to resolve an impasse is to resort to a higher authority.

So, whether it's a School's Governing Body, a Court, or a Sports Referee Council the option to have the issue decided on by impartial third parties (not the prosecution) is standard practice in human societies.

The implementation of that principle here would be the intervention of a Host.

Maybe it's because I use shorthand words and phrases?

Fr Gregory, please take a "timeout" and go read Matthew Ch. 5. I believe it was Clyde who pointed these verses out to you on the "Diminuitives" thread:

vs 23 "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you

vs 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

vs 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

vs 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny."

Fr Gregory, this is straight from my Orthodox Study Bible and the text is in red, meaning this statement is attributed to Jesus.

You're the self-proclaimed priest here. You figure it out.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Bessie

Shall we try to keep this thread based on general principle as was intended?

If a person apologised for offence caused and the apology was not accepted then what else could he or she do? We all experience folk who do not forgive us.

I am still not conceding the point admirably explained by Cliona. If one were to accept that an apology can still be genuine and sincere.

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

If a person apologised for offence caused and the apology was not accepted then what else could he or she do? We all experience folk who do not forgive us.

It depends what you want. In some cases there may be unreconcilable differences. But there seems to be some christian responsibility to make a stab at sorting these out.

If one person in an argument apologises for any offence unintentionally caused (without recognising any part in that offence) and no one accepts the apology, that person could perhaps claim the moral high ground.

However it seems to me that a chief aim of apology and forgiveness is the restoration of a meaningful relationship and community. That's why apologies need to be sincere and perceived as such by those who have been offended. It's a two-way thing. That is likely to mean some self-examination too. Absence of such a process is damaging to the integration of that person in the community.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

If it comes to my attention that I have offended someone, I believe that it is incumbent on me to either admit that the offense was intentional, or to apologize for causing it. What I can't allow myself to do is to pretend that I have no role in the matter.

This area challenges me personally. My personality makes it far easier to justify my actions than to back down when I don't think I was objectively in the wrong. I am slowly learning that to humbly offer an apology, even if it is undeserved, can sometimes be good for my soul. If I am especially blessed, perhaps someday it will become a natural response.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

Okay, I have got to point something out.

Many people think an apology is: "I am sorry if I said that you were a fat cow BUT/HOWEVER you have gained 10 lbs AND made fun of my bald head, HENCE/THEREFORE I felt it was FINE to tell you that you were a fat cow..."

This is the SORRIEST apology and is not EVEN an apology. It is yet another WAY TO SHOVE your tainted viewpoint down somebody's throat.

An apology means you went "duh! I was WRONG to say that!"

It has NO BUT/HOWEVER's in it...it also has no HENCE/THEREFORE's (even implicitly implied)

A real man/woman says...
"I am sorry I called you a fat cow. I had no right to do that and I hurt you. CAN YOU FORGIVE ME/ACCEPT MY APOLOGY?

Maybe later the man will hear "you know, I am so sorry I made fun of your bald head. I never thought it was a bad thing, it is rather cute in fact" but that is NOT the reason he apologises.

The last part is VERY important...this is the way you put things back to the way they were. Once the person says "yes" then the permission for them to bring up the past incident has been revoke. Then you both move onward.

I see many times people have their heads up their buttocks and do these silly little dances...

One example in my own real life.

I was debating a Catholic on something. I pointed out a bible verse. She did not know the verse so she said "you took that out of context! I have read the entire bible...more than 10 times and I know that." So finally, I gave up. I saw it was pointless and useless and also I was waking up to the realisation that Catholics and Protestants believe different sets of theology.

I called her up later and apologised.."I am sorry. I can see that my continued bringing up bible verses upset you and I think I should not have pushed it. Can you forgive me?"

She said "Of course!" I thought I was home free...then...

"BUT...you know my husband said you worship the bible and you have too much pride about the bible..."

This set back our friendship. I took 2 steps back since a) she was rubbing my face in this b) she herself had been a big wench/rag to me (yelling, insulting me) but she did not even acknowledge that c)bringing her husband into a conversation that didn't include him to make a "WE against YOU" thing is gossipy and also immature d) Insulting me and telling me I engage worshipping the bible was not appropriate here. If she truly felt that way, it could have been said a nicer way and maybe even at another time!

An apology is NOT the time to rub somebody's face into something, lecture them...it is a time to try to "put things back the way they were before". It is not a time to make excuses either.

On the boards, if you are pushing your views forward in a manner that is hostile and troll-like, you should apologise for the manner in which you are posting. We all have various camps of theology, nobody should have to apologise for whatever camp of theology they hold to, wheather it be Mormon or Calivnistic, Catholic or Universal. You dig?

Anyway, that is my take on the manner.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Alright, now we get personal since it has become unavoidable.

In the "Damned Dimunitives" thread I offered a sincere apology for offence caused.

It wasn't accepted because I could not additionally honestly say that there was any substance to the issue that caused the offence although I full accepted responsibility for causing the offence, albeit unintentionally. It was not reckoned enough for me to accept that I had offended. I had to accept I was wrong in the material matter as well.

I have examined my conscience in the matter and it is clear. I have gnawed and worried over this for several days. I have to be true to myself and work through my potential for self deception as much any other person. I have prayed; I have consulted. I am through.

This very definitely has to be the end of the line on this one for me now. Blood is all I have left. There will be no more contributions on this thread or on the other, "Damned Dimunitives" (to which I am copying this). Short of a directive from a Host I will not be returning to Hell for a period of one month. It is getting too upsetting for me as well now and I do have responsibilities to other people rather than trying to mop up here all the time as well. If you want to say anything to me you want me to read you will have to send a PM. I can't promise I will reply.

I wish you all well. You will know that I am serious about not coming here as my name will not appear amongst the list of recent visitors. Call me a coward if you will but we all have limits of endurance and I have reached mine.

COPIED TO "DAMNED DIMUNITIVES" THREAD

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

I don't know whether Fr Gregory is referring to my last post, but I suspect he is.

I would like to point out for the record that the ideas I was working through were not related primarily to him. There are other people in the universe and some of them are in my church!

In the mean time, and in response to Fr G's request to keep this thread general, I just composed a post on specific issues with Fr G that got lost when I tried to post it on Damned Diminutives. I'm going to rewrite it now and post it there. I'm also going to PM the contents of this post to Fr G.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eutychus:
Twilight, I think that on the Ship it is hosts and admins who can require apologies from posters if they deem them to have transgressed the 10C. In general, we can't require apologies but our relationships with other members will be influenced by the degree to which they accept responsibility for offence caused.

Yes but I've heard regular shipmates say things like;"I don't accept your apology because you haven't admitted that you were wrong," "Your apology doesn't ring sincere",or "I don't accept your apology because your tone is arrogant."

Who is to be the judge of these things? Not just here but IRL? Isn't it morally right for the person receiving the apology to give the other person the benefit of the doubt?

Bessie, I think the Bible passage is assuming that the brother has a legitmate beef with the sacrifice giver. Surely we can still offer sacrifices if our brother is mad at us for, say, not letting him have all our savings. Or are we held responsible for all anger against ourselves, whether petty and groundless or not? Wouldn't it be easy to turn the tables and say, "My brother should not be allowed in the temple because he has asked something ridiculous of me that it is not fair to ask?"
Now we are back to the question of who should be the judge.

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

Twilight, there was a discussion in Kerygmania a while back called "Forgiveness" that deals somewhat with the dynamics we are dealing with here.

I think we need to distinguish between forgiveness in relation to authority and forgiveness between two "brothers". Judgement in relation to an offence towards and as defined by those in authority is not the same as 'judging' the responsibility in a conflict between two people.

What I meant by hosts and admins being able to "require" apologies is that they are the guardians of the community here and its laws. They get to decide who's in and who's out. They can "require" apologies in the sense that anyone who does not apologise (sincerely or otherwise!) runs the risk of walking the plank. In that sense they are the judges.

As to the wider question, "between brothers", I think that initially it is up to the two parties and that it's a dynamic thing. The best example I know is in the movie Shrek towards the end when the ogre and the donkey have an argument. For them to be reconciled is not just matter of words but about their mutual perceptions of responsibility and heart attitude.

I think that here on the boards it's pretty much the same. You go off what you know of a person from their posts and any other interaction you may have had with them, how they deal with similar situations with others, etc.

If the issue is still unresolved then I guess you can appeal to the wider community, 'go and tell it to the assembly', which is more or less what happens when someone gets called to Hell.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Saying sorry don't mean shit me. A change of ways is more important. 1% saying sorry, 99% trying not to do it again. Hell you could even try and make ammends.

P

Posted by marmot (# 479) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If it comes to my attention that I have offended someone, I believe that it is incumbent on me to either admit that the offense was intentional, or to apologize for causing it. What I can't allow myself to do is to pretend that I have no role in the matter.

This area challenges me personally. My personality makes it far easier to justify my actions than to back down when I don't think I was objectively in the wrong. I am slowly learning that to humbly offer an apology, even if it is undeserved, can sometimes be good for my soul. If I am especially blessed, perhaps someday it will become a natural response.

I believe this is true, Scot. Recently, I've been in a situation where I made clear my strong opinions on a subject, and offended someone who believes differently. Over time, I have learned that I'm allowed to have my feelings on an issue, but that often I value a relationship enough to say "I know I offended you and I'm sorry. I was out of line. I hope we can still be friends, even if we disagree on things sometimes.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

..... it's OK marmot I forgive you for the "shithead" crack [Big Grin]

Posted by marmot (# 479) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes but I've heard regular shipmates say things like;"I don't accept your apology because you haven't admitted that you were wrong," "Your apology doesn't ring sincere",or "I don't accept your apology because your tone is arrogant."

Sorry, Twilight, anybody who's ever been on a playground knows what they mean. It's the "I'm sorry you're such a weiner (or whiner)" school of apology, and most people see it for what it is.

Much more honest, I think, to say: "I feel very strongly about this issue, and I'm willing to sacrifice social acceptibility and relationships rather than apologize for my behavior." (notice that I am not saying "apologize for my opinions")

Posted by marmot (# 479) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
..... it's OK marmot I forgive you for the "shithead" crack

P

When did I ever use that word? All I ever did was quote you, dear.

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Bessie, I think the Bible passage is assuming that the brother has a legitmate beef with the sacrifice giver. Surely we can still offer sacrifices if our brother is mad at us for, say, not letting him have all our savings. Or are we held responsible for all anger against ourselves, whether petty and groundless or not? Wouldn't it be easy to turn the tables and say, "My brother should not be allowed in the temple because he has asked something ridiculous of me that it is not fair to ask?"
Now we are back to the question of who should be the judge.

I agree with your assumption. I believe I have used these verses in the correct context, because I believe certain Shipmates, Hosts and Admins do indeed have a legitimate beef.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

What about those of us who always apologise just to keep the peace? I'm getting better at not doing this, but when I feel intimidated I often won't speak up for myself.

My apology doesn't really mean diddly-squat, but very frequently the person I'm apologising to thinks it does. Where does that leave me? I still hold my original position.

I am blessed in my congregation with a couple of people who never, ever apologise, not even if whole meetings are disagreeing with them. They are frequently rude, dismissive and apparently completely unable to listen. I find people like that very intimidating.

An example - our parish is trying to decide what to do with its buildings. We have a church made of historic crumbling concrete (with a classification which means we can't just pull it down, unfortunately). We have wooden back buildings which are about 3 times the size of the church. The parish decided, about a year ago, not to knock down the back buildings, but to refit them. One of our intransigent people wanted the building knocked down. At a meeting last week he was still on about it and telling the rest of us we were wrong. He will not let it go, even though there was otherwise consensus on the plan, and we have to move on.

What do we do with him?

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

Twilight wrote:

quote:
Many people on this board have said that an apology is worthless if it does not include an admission of wrong doing...

Wrong doing or wrong thinking? Were I to take behave in a hurtful manner towards one of you in making my point I'd apologise and if I remained intransigent on the point I'd expect (perhaps) one of the hosts or admins to insist (less so in Hell than elsewhere) that I apologise to the offended shipmate.

You'd have to wait a lot longer to say that the point I was making needed to be apologised for. I might reconsider the point but then again I might not.

Apology #1 - John, I'm sorry that you feel that way. We don't always agree - this is an issue we are divided on and, to reiterate, I'm sorry that it's come to a disagreement and I'm sorry that you're cross with me for thinking thus and so.

Apology #2 - John, I'm sorry for the way I phrased that last comment. I am still of that opinion - this hasn't changed but that line about your family background and your eating habits was not only out of line it was patently incorrect. I'll watch my mouth next time.

Apology #3 - John, in reviewing what I said I realize that that was out of line. What I said wasn't correct, it was based on a misunderstanding - in fact it was an out and out lie I told because I was really pissed at you. It won't happen again and I'll write a post recanting both the tone and substance of what I said.

Different sorts of apologies - all of them actual bona fide apologies - but with different degrees of admission of wrongdoing

Raspberry Rabbit
Postmaster,
Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

This is getting worrying. Yesterday I found myself agreeing with MadGeo, today I am agreeing with Scot.

ISTM that the shortest apology is: "I am sorry". That may be too short, and some explanation is helpful. That could be taking all the blame on yourself: "I was in a stinking temper, which I shouldn't have been . . . ", but does not have to be: "It wasn't my intention to hurt you, however I recognise that I have and I am sorry for being so clumsy, tacteless etc." Either one of those options is still a genuine apology, ISTM, because in both the speaker is recognising their part in the hurt the listener is feeling.

However, saying: "I'm sorry - but actually you had no reason to be hurt because if you really understood what I was saying you would not have been offended at all," is not truly an apology, in my eyes. In a case like that the speaker is not accepting responsibility, but is further wounding the listener by putting all the blame on them. ISTM that an apology is a recognition that, in some way, I got it wrong.

(This was all much clearer in my head when I started posting, but I'm tired, getting muddled, and I think I'm repeating what others have said better.)

Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :

[Tangent]

Arabella PW wrote

quote:
One of our intransigent people wanted the building knocked down. At a meeting last week he was still on about it and telling the rest of us we were wrong. He will not let it go, even though there was otherwise consensus on the plan, and we have to move on.

What do we do with him?

I don’t know what system of church government you’ve got, but at the Baptist church I attend we have our fair share of “intransigent people” too. One of the beauties (one of the few) of congregational government is that the leadership can just turn round and say, “We’ve discussed this at <whichever> membership meeting and we voted on it then. This is the decision that the church has made and we’re not going over it all again …” Followed by a swift change of subject.

At least one of our “intransigent persons” has complained that they weren’t at that meeting so they didn’t have a voice. And they were very firmly informed that was their problem rather than the rest of the meetings as the agenda gets circulated and they could have asked someone to speak on their behalf.

It isn’t very gentle but it does stop them derailing the meetings by having the same discussions over and over again – with the hidden agenda of boring us all into agreement with them. You could suggest to your leadership that they try this if they haven’t already. [/Tangent]

Tubbs

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

To add to Mrs. Tubb's fine post...at my church, whenever we have a vote, 2/3 of all members MUST be present to vote on any matter.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

IMO, the only apology worth a shit is "I'm sorry, I fucked up". If you qualify it in ANY way, it's not an apology. Also, it's like a red flag to the bull when I see people apologizing for MY feelings ("well, I'm sorry you feel that way"). ARGH!!! I HATE THAT.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Eutychus: Thanks for the tip about the thread on forgiveness in Kerygmania. It's been really helpful.

Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

quote:
My apology doesn't really mean diddly-squat, but very frequently the person I'm apologising to thinks it does.

Good point. My neighbor apologizes profusely for things she doesn't even have any control over like not coming to visit me when she didn't know I was sick, but my husband's muttered "sorry" carries much more weight because I know how rare it is and how much it costs him.

Duchess' example of the woman who took Duchess' apology and instantly used it against her with more criticism added is the kind of thing I really hate. That's one of the things I hoped to sort out with this thread. How much responsibility does the apology receiver have to accept the apology graciously without trying to use it to further humble the person who has apologized?

I like Rasberry Rabbit's list of types of apologies. I think they're all good according to the issue and the temperment of the person apologizing.

Scot gets into a gray area I'm not too sure of. If we apologize for even discussing a topic that someone finds hurtful do we compromise truth? If we say, for example, "I think stealing is always wrong," and someone says,"Hey, I'm a kleptomaniac and you've really hurt me." Can we say we're sorry that we've hurt their feelings but we still think stealing is wrong? Or is that the kind of qualified apology that some of you find unacceptable?

Posted by Benedictus (# 1215) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
[Apology #1 - John, I'm sorry that you feel that way. We don't always agree - this is an issue we are divided on and, to reiterate, I'm sorry that it's come to a disagreement and I'm sorry that you're cross with me for thinking thus and so.

Apology #2 - John, I'm sorry for the way I phrased that last comment. I am still of that opinion - this hasn't changed but that line about your family background and your eating habits was not only out of line it was patently incorrect. I'll watch my mouth next time.

Apology #3 - John, in reviewing what I said I realize that that was out of line. What I said wasn't correct, it was based on a misunderstanding - in fact it was an out and out lie I told because I was really pissed at you. It won't happen again and I'll write a post recanting both the tone and substance of what I said.

2 and 3 make sense to me. Apology #1, IMO, does not count as an apology at all. I, like Erin, get real upset if somebody apologizes to me for my feelings.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

Another rule of thumb I use is if an apology contains the word "but", it isn't. Likewise for "however".

[ 20. February 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: David ]

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

To my way of thinking there is a sincere apology for giving unintended that does not necessarily say, "it was my fault." Such an apology says, "I truly did not mean it that way but I fully understand how you could have taken it that way and I'm sorry. I'll try to be more sensitive and I hope I've convinced you that you can trust me."

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

{TonyK tiptoes towards the Alligator and, standing what he hopes is a safe distance from the business end, whispers} Sorry, Erin but on this occasion I have to disagree with you. To say

quote:
"I'm sorry, I fucked up"

cannot be

quote:
the only apology worth a shit

since it implies that the apologist has to say, in effect, that you are right in all particulars, while he/she is wrong.

It does not allow for the possiblity that the apologist holds views that differ significantly from yours,and that nothing you have said has changed his/her views, but who still wishes to indicate that he/she regrets that those views were expressed in a manner hurtful to you.

I have a horrible suspicion that some of the disagreement may be caused by different American/English understanding of the words 'sorry' and 'apology'

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word 'sorry' -
Pained, distressed, sad. Now esp. regretful, penitent.

Incidentally and somewhat tangentially, the NSOED also notes that the word sorry comes from 'Gmc base of SORE n. (+) Y. The change and shortening of the vowel have given the word an apparent connection with unrelated SORROW'.

NSOED definition of the noun 'apology' -
'A frank acknowledgement of fault or failure, given by way of reparation; (or) an explanation that no offence was intended, with regret for any given or taken.'

My english teacher taught that it was only correct to 'say sorry' when you had made a mistake and regretted it; for all other situations the correct form was to apologise.

It has to be possible for an apology to be given and received in the second form, unless we are to insist that all Shipmates hold identical views on all subjects (which would tend to eliminate the need for the Ship!)

{TonyK tiptoes away, taking an inventory of his appendages}

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
It does not allow for the possiblity that the apologist holds views that differ significantly from yours,and that nothing you have said has changed his/her views, but who still wishes to indicate that he/she regrets that those views were expressed in a manner hurtful to you.

In other words... "I screwed up and shouldn't have said what I said". Right?

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
In other words... "I screwed up and shouldn't have said what I said". Right?

Pretty much right!

If you mean 'I screwed up in the way I said it, and shouldn't have said what I said' then OK.

If you mean 'I screwed up and got my facts wrong and shouldn't have have said what I said' then also OK.

But if you mean 'I screwed up because we disagree on this subject and I shouldn't have expressed my beliefs' then not OK.

It's all down to the one word. The phrase 'I'm sorry, I fucked up' implies to me that I recognise that I am totally in the wrong, in substance, in facts and the way I said it, and am truly sorry (i.e. repentant) for what I've done. (Always allowing, of course, that I wouldn't use the 'f' word in that context - put it down to my up-bringing [Smile]

)

If your original post had been phrased as 'I apologise, I fucked up' I probably wouldn't have started this. Maybe it's just me [Big Grin]

{Tonyk - still in full possession of all his appendages}

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Interesting thoughts on this TonyK.
I agree. I hear people say "I'm so sorry" to someone who's husband has just died when we all know full well they didn't kill him. Now, if they said "I apologize for your husband's death"....hmmm...

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

Hmmm. I don't know about the rest of you (I imagine it's the same) but I spend a lot of time arguing with people in the course of my work. I tend to attract conflict like a ripe fig attracts beetles both because of my personality and because of the type of work I do and the type of people I work with. I use apology #1 all the time:

quote:
Apology #1 - John, I'm sorry that you feel that way. We don't always agree - this is an issue we are divided on and, to reiterate, I'm sorry that it's come to a disagreement and I'm sorry that you're cross with me for thinking thus and so.

which according to you lot (and, I suspect, my beloved Erin as well) is not an apology and is not worth the warm air which makes up its vocables. I use it because I will remain in some sort of community with people I disagree fundamentally with and will no doubt continue to be a source of pain to them because we find ourselves on two different sides of some important issues.

So what do you say when you want to preserve community but don't intend to cave on a particular position?

Raspberry Rabbit
Postmaster
Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Interesting thoughts on this TonyK.
I agree. I hear people say "I'm so sorry" to someone who's husband has just died when we all know full well they didn't kill him. Now, if they said "I apologize for your husband's death"....hmmm...

OK - so I can be as inconsistent as the next person....

This is clearly using the word 'sorry' in its first definition; 'Pained, distressed, sad'

'I am so distressed/pained/saddened to hear about your husband's death'

Not that inconsistent, really [Big Grin]

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Well, I generally only use the word "sorry" to admit guilt. Otherwise, I substitute the appropriate words (my condolences/I wish it hadn't come to this/I feel bad about this/etc.).

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

RR, your Apology #1 just doesn't do it for me. It sounds way too much like, "I'm sorry you're an idiot and easily upset."

In my experience, the success of an apology rests in large part on being clear about what you are apologizing for. For instance, "I offended you needlessly. I was wrong to do that, and I apologize" will go over a whole lot better than, "I'm sorry you are upset." In the former, the speaker accepts blame for a specific action. In the latter, the blame is placed (with deep and sincere regret) on the listener.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I do think that sometimes we just have to accept that some people don't like us, and not to take it all too personally.

But apologies which aren't meaningful stink.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I definitely believe there's a place in the world for RR's apology #1. I don't always require a full confession of liability to be satisfied, sometimes just a validation of my feelings is enough.

About a year ago I stood in the local mental health clinic and had a full blown rant over the fact that my son, who had just started on meds wouldn't get an appointment to see a Psychiatrist for three months. My explosion not only expressed my fear that if he didn't get back-up support he might go off the meds but the rant also expressed ten years of frustration over the whole mental health system in America. After I finally got it all out and took a breath, a young Psychologist patted my shoulder and said, "It's hard."

It makes me laugh now to think of it but it was the perfect thing to say. They hadn't really done anything wrong. They weren't responsible for all my problems and they were all doing the best they could so they didn't owe me an Apology but that tiny expression of sympathy meant so much.

Posted by Clyde (# 752) on :

I think that often it's not so much the actual words that form an apology but the 'Tone' in which it is written.

Somehow we seem to 'sense' whether an apology is genuine or not. It's difficult to define what this 'tone' is but as we all tend to be subjective I suspect that our reaction if often based on this.

The 'tone' can cause us, for example, to sometimes suspect that someone may be acting to the 'letter' but not the 'spirit'.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0